Back to Basics, Part 1 and Part 2, lay the framework for asking the key questions of this blog, which relate to "Just how 'scientific' are vaccines, in principle, in practice, in fact and in application?" In order to understand the implications of that in babies, the lack of understanding about the neonatal immune system (and new discoveries which are very disturbing) - another three part blog series - has to be read:
Vaccines and Neonatal Immune Development
How a baby fights infection and Develops Immunity
Each of the three blogs above, suffer from the same problems as medical research. They describewhat is NOW known (which scratches the surface and exposes past ignorance), but they don't describe the immune system in total for the simple reason that medical researchers can't know, what they don't know. The little they do now know, shows that many of their previous assumptions on what vaccines do in the body are wrong, and would be of concern to parents, if that information was given to them. Immunologists see no reason to inform parents, and despite what they don't know, the" blind" medical system is happy to insist on universal "compliance" of the even more "blind" parents, without consideration of the principles of "choice" or "informed consent".
In part one of this series we discussed "Why doctors keep doing treatments that don't work", which said:
"In you, this therapy won't work, so skip it." The opportunity to take potentially life-saving therapies and give them only to the 30%-50% of a cohort that deserves them, by virtue of having some positive impact, saves half of the expense."
This same principle also applies to vaccines in many different ways, though you wouldn't know it in the present "one-size-fits-all' vaccine curriculum. The current editor of a medical journal called VACCINE, is Gregory Poland, a man who has done a lot of research on a topic called VACCINOMICS, which is similar to epigenetics, but which takes no notice of the "age, infection, diet, stress and you name it" mentioned in part 2.
Gregory Poland knows that the ONLY people who get a disease and get seriously sick from it, are people who have a genetic susceptibility to THAT disease.
Gregory Poland also knows that the very people who don't respond to a specific vaccine, are the same (very rare) people who got serious complications to the disease.
Gregory Poland knows that genetic susceptibility is why not everyone has complications to, or dies from measles, whooping cough, haemophilus or any of the other diseases. Genetic susceptibility is also why, in undeveloped countries where TB and leprosy are endemic due to malnutrition, even then.... only about .01% of the population will actually get clinical disease.
In a developed country, the controlling factor of the immune system is nutrition, and truly - if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out. Which is why bad nutrition is a major driver of infection. Eat badly and you will get sick. Everyone knows that. Add in war and stress, and things get even worse.
And Gregory Poland knows that in developing countries "malnuitrition" and dirty water, are the biggest drivers of disease.
Gregory Poland knows that if you responded well to the measles vaccine, you are very unlikely to have been a person who would have responded badly to the disease, and in terms of preventing complications and disease, the vaccine was not much use to you, the individual.
But Gregory Poland would that even if you don't need vaccines, you should have them in order to protect the people who WOULD suffer serious consequences, most of who do NOT respond well to the vaccine.
Gregory Poland also knows from his published research, that susceptibility to vaccine reactions, is NOT the same "susceptibility" as that relating to the disease, because a reaction can be caused by any number of vaccine components completely unrelated to the disease. So the "risks" from the vaccine are quite different from the "risks" for the disease, because the genetic susceptibility to the two aren't the same. But he doesn't want to talk about that.
Gregory Poland also has patents to new types of vaccines he is developing, which he hopes will - sometime in the future, result in vaccines for people who don't NOW respond to current vaccines. Which is sort of in line with the comment above which says: "The opportunity to take potentially life-saving therapies and give them only to the 30%-50% of a cohort that deserves them, by virtue of having some positive impact, saves half of the expense."
You'd think that ideally ... we could then just give vaccines to those people with the genetic susceptibilities which results in the immune system not working properly right? Not really. Looking at genetic susceptibility actually means nothing - if you don't know how the immune system actually interacts under any circumstances.
Another question often asked is, "Well, why don't they work out who can tolerate the disease and who can't?"
Answer. They don't understand how genetics relates to the immune system well enough to figure that out.
so then you ask, "Why don't they find out who is at risk of the vaccines, so that they won't receive them?".
Answer. Same answer as above.
And the bottom line really is, that - despite all the information in the medical literature to the contrary, "apocryphal dogma" says that there is no need to know any of that "stuff", because "we know that" vaccines have saved billions of people all around the world since Jenner's time...., and without all those vaccines shoved into babies since half way through last century, there would be no children left now, would there?
Pardon the sarcasm. But that's what most mothers believe now, and such nonsense is inferred to in the medical literature, CDC, and all sites which push vaccines.
Which raises another question (also slightly sarcastic)
If the "lives saved" arguments were true, then we could also lay at their doorstep another crime - that those lives saved were a major "driver" for "too many humans cause climate change", no?
The ignorance of the medical profession described in these three blogs raises many questions, some of which are:
1) How much of what is accepted as vaccine dogma, is "eminence-based" medicine, based on apocryphal suggestions from remote history?
Obviously, quite a lot, given that EVEN WHEN that very flawed system called "evidence based medicine" clearly shows that a vaccine is found to be useless, the medical system continues to ignore the evidence, and as if on autopilot, they push it as their only "effective solution" to "that" problem. The two best scientifically proven examples of that "political junk science" shoved down parents' throats, are the whooping cough and flu vaccines.
Having said that, Australia has just discontinued the "cocooning" vaccinating of adults around newborn babies with whooping cough vaccines, because it doesn't work. For some funny reason, they haven't asked themselves the logical question which is, "If the whooping cough vaccines doesn't work in adults, why would we expect parents to believe that it "works" in babies?"
2) When a person is injected with a vaccine, and has a "reaction", why is it, that everything that happens after a vaccine is called "a coincidence", and that the "experts" state that the person couldn't possibly have died as a result of the vaccine?
3) Why do parents accept the word of these immunologists - who admit they know very little - when they say that they know what they are talking about?
4) Why is it alright for doctors to admit, as above that " we fully know that 30%-40% of the people to whom we provide such therapies derive no benefit but experience all the costs and all the adverse consequences." but then turn around and say that there are never... ever.... consequences to vaccines?
to be continued....
